Hancock's Half Hour

[Terry - Somerset]

Temperature testing has been dismissed as a triumph of presentation over substance - the probability of carrying a temperature as you go through immigration being very low.

One option is quarantine. There is a reasonable debate over length but it means only essential travel is undertaken - probably a good outcome at the moment.

Another would be to apply quarantine measures to people coming from countries, airports, and on airlines which don't have adequate controls in place.

We should also note that some may be coming from countries which have a lower incidence of disease, and better controls than the UK. They would (in theory) actually reduce the threat in the UK population.

 

[Rorschach]

Temperature testing, purely a placebo, you might get a few % of cases if you are lucky. Quarantine, how you gonna manage that? Where are you going to put them all?

 

[D_W]

It has been pathetically handled and the current people in charge should be investigated under criminal negligence charges. The has been no testing - even temp checks of people arriving in the UK since this stated at any port/airport as part of official policy. People i know who were able to get back to the UK last week after being in lockdown in the far east just walked through Edinburgh airportarrivals got their luggage and got in a taxi.

Do you suppose that it's something like this?
* limited availability to do the testing
* if you tried to allocate resources by likelihood, virtue signaling would ensue?

 

[D_W]

Temperature testing, purely a placebo, you might get a few % of cases if you are lucky. Quarantine, how you gonna manage that? Where are you going to put them all?

It's nearly this generation's duck and cover. The hand washing is probably not that preventive, either - mass transmission seems to be happening to people in a confined area or where there's still air.

 

[Rorschach]

Temperature testing, purely a placebo, you might get a few % of cases if you are lucky. Quarantine, how you gonna manage that? Where are you going to put them all?

It's nearly this generation's duck and cover. The hand washing is probably not that preventive, either - mass transmission seems to be happening to people in a confined area or where there's still air.

Yes almost. Hand washing likely does help though as we touch lots of surfaces and an infected person is likely to cough into their hands. Even if hand washing isn't effective at stopping transmission it's cheap, easy and really we should be washing our hands regularly anyway. Temp checking, quarantining etc though are much more expensive and intrusive for little benefit.

 

[Trainee neophyte]

A couple of points: Portugal seems to agree with Roger, in that they are proposing to cover UK holiday makers, in the same way that they are currently covered. Paella and chips, and a hospital bed. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... hcare-ehic

Not sure if the rest of the PIGS are planning to follow suit. Given that there is a significant flow of funds from UK to the EEA because of Brits abroad getting healthcare, it could make for a boost to tourism, especially if there are long term affects due to the evil virus. https://fullfact.org/health/how-much-do ... -costs-eu/

Other countries claim for more from the NHS than the UK claims back
In 2015, EEA countries and Switzerland claimed against the NHS for over £674 million of costs of treating people from the UK overseas. In the same year, the NHS claimed for £50 million of equivalent costs for treating EEA and Swiss citizens in the UK.

Secondly, the vast, overwhelming majority of people have nothing to fear from Covid19. Expecting the entire world population to shelter in place for the rest of days, just in case, is not feasible. The nice man from the ministry said this:

he great majority of people will not die from this and I’ll just repeat something I said right at the beginning because I think it’s worth reinforcing:

Most people, a significant proportion of people, will not get this virus at all, at any point of the epidemic which is going to go on for a long period of time.

Of those who do, some of them will get the virus without even knowing it, they will have the virus with no symptoms at all, asymptomatic carriage, and we know that happens.

Of those who get symptoms, the great majority, probably 80%, will have a mild or moderate disease. Might be bad enough for them to have to go to bed for a few days, not bad enough for them to have to go to the doctor.

An unfortunate minority will have to go as far as hospital, but the majority of those will just need oxygen and will then leave hospital.

And then a minority of those will end up having to go to severe end critical care and some of those sadly will die.

But that’s a minority, it’s 1% or possibly even less than 1% overall.

And even in the highest risk group this is significantly less than 20%, ie. the great majority of people, even the very highest groups, if they catch this virus, will not die.

And I really wanted to make that point really clearly

https://youtu.be/adj8MCsZKlg

 

[doctor Bob]

Secondly, the vast, overwhelming majority of people have nothing to fear from Covid19. Expecting the entire world population to shelter in place for the rest of days, just in case, is not feasible.

Whilst getting 80% wage a lot of people will keep up appearances of being fearful................. controversial I know but seriously if I was on 80% of my wage to sit at home in the summer I wouldn'd be rushing back.
Note: I'm aware a lot of furloughed people are on less than 80% of their wage and struggling, as a result they are probably keener to return. I think furlough should have been 80% but reducing by 10% every 2 months.

 

[Rorschach]

Secondly, the vast, overwhelming majority of people have nothing to fear from Covid19. Expecting the entire world population to shelter in place for the rest of days, just in case, is not feasible.

Whilst getting 80% wage a lot of people will keep up appearances of being fearful................. controversial I know but seriously if I was on 80% of my wage to sit at home in the summer I wouldn'd be rushing back.
Note: I'm aware a lot of furloughed people are on less than 80% of their wage and struggling, as a result they are probably keener to return. I think furlough should have been 80% but reducing by 10% every 2 months.

Not controversial with me, I suspected it would happen because I know if I was at home being paid 80% (or even 100% in some cases) to do nothing I would be loving it, lockdown or not.
Teachers are the latest to try and avoid going to work. I have teacher friends, they proudly boast how they clap for key workers until they were asked to go back to work, suddenly it isn't safe and teachers aren't key workers.

I know I slagged off the Police here before, and they have not redeemed themselves in the past few weeks but to their credit all the Police in the family have worked their full shifts with no complaints and from what I have heard in their stories they have acted impeccably. Mostly they have been bored, training cancelled, special ops cancelled, more officers on shift than ever before and little work to do, maybe that explains the good behaviour?

 

[Setch]

I have teacher friends. Teachers are already working from home, and on rotas in schools to teach the kids of keyworkers. In some cases, they're also trying to home school or mind their own kids as well.

There is also zero contradiction between applauding those who risk their lives or health for something, and not wanting to do the same unnecessarily.

 

[RogerS]

Piece in the paper today about the whistleblowing hotline receiving a lot of calls from workers who have been furloughed but being still asked to work by their bosses/company owners using all sorts of scams, fraud etc. Hopefully anyone defrauding the furlough system will be prosecuted.

I am apprehensive though that a lot of people won't be going back to work as some companies will take this as an 'opportunity' to shed staff.

On another note, did anyone else catch the excellent BBC More or Less programme the other day that explained why the German death toll was so low (c. 8000+)? To precis it..

mid-Feb, the Germans identified the virus in people returning from skiing holidays in N. Italy and Austria. Widespread testing was recommended by the German disease control organisation.

Anyone testing positive, had all their contacts followed up as much as possible - sometimes between 80 and 100 per person - and these people were also tested. Anyone testing positive was isolated for 14 days. They were carrying out 50,000 a DAY while the UK was struggling to do 50,000 a week ! By March 23, Germany had detected and isolated 27,000 people with Covid. The UK - only 9000 and it's not rocket-science to realise that the UK was missing many infected people.

The German testing regime slowed the spread but there were still deaths. So they implemented their lockdown. Same day as us. Only in terms of the virus lifecycle, they were a week earlier. They implemented lockdown after 86 deaths. At the same point in time, we had 359 deaths. Exponential. Go figure. The genie was out of the bottle in the UK. We locked down too late.

We know how it all turned out.

 

[Rorschach]

A lot of countries have done better than us.....so far. But how will these countries open up again?

New Zealand is widely touted as having done well, I agree they did, but they also started from a far better position than we did and they have managed to contain the virus incredibly well. But what now? How does New Zealand open up again? As soon as they do they will get new infections and start the process all over again, they are effectively a quarantined country.

Italy suffered very badly, worse than us as not only do they have a high per million death rate but also their health system was almost completely overwhelmed in some places, almost certainly increasing the death toll higher than necessary. In just over a week though they open their borders and are encouraging tourists. How can they do this, because they have quite likely broken the back of the infection for their country, they are well on their way to herd immunity.

 

[RogerS]

Wishful , ostrich thinking ....again.

"Despite the large number of deaths (more than 28,000 as of 1st May), the current proportion of people who contracted COVID-19 does not provide herd immunity—where most of a population is immune, providing indirect protection for those who are not immune. In Italy, Lombardy has the highest proportion of infections in the population. However, none of the Italian regions—including Lombardy—currently have herd-immunity."

source: https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-05- ... ovid-.html

 

[Rorschach]

Please put me back on ignore Roger, thanks.

 

[Just4Fun]

New Zealand is widely touted as having done well, I agree they did, but they also started from a far better position than we did ...

In what way? A few months ago all countries were the same: no cases. We all started from the same position, surely?

 

[Rorschach]

New Zealand is widely touted as having done well, I agree they did, but they also started from a far better position than we did ...

In what way? A few months ago all countries were the same: no cases. We all started from the same position, surely?

No, massive difference:

Smaller country
Lower population density
Much less movement of people for tourism/business etc
Virtually everyone arrives by plane, freight comes by boat or plane

By contrast while we are an island nation we have a massive movement of people, much higher population density, we have the worlds busiest airport complex attached directly to one of the worlds mega cities, lots of our freight comes on lorries through the channel tunnel as well as lots of people using that CT and ferries etc. C19 was moving through the country long before we knew what a threat it was.

We may have all started from zero, but our starting dates were not the same and our lifestyle, business etc much different.

 

[lurker]

I noticed in the paper today that lord fox (never heard of him!!) furloughed himself from his one man business, but carried on drawing his £169 House of Lords daily allowance.
Now he has been caught out, he is paying back the money.
He needs stripping of honours and chucking out.
I bet there are loads of them at it!

Edit: sorry I seem to have libelled him, it was £162 per day

 

[RogerS]

Please put me back on ignore Roger, thanks.

Why? Just because I'm highlighting the flaws and weaknesses in your posts ?

 

[Rorschach]

Please put me back on ignore Roger, thanks.

Why? Just because I'm highlighting the flaws and weaknesses in your posts ?

You didn't even read my post properly and I haven't got time for your nasty little posts.

 

[Andy Kev.]

No, massive difference:

Smaller country
Lower population density
Much less movement of people for tourism/business etc
Virtually everyone arrives by plane, freight comes by boat or plane

By contrast while we are an island nation we have a massive movement of people, much higher population density, we have the worlds busiest airport complex attached directly to one of the worlds mega cities, lots of our freight comes on lorries through the channel tunnel as well as lots of people using that CT and ferries etc. C19 was moving through the country long before we knew what a threat it was.

We may have all started from zero, but our starting dates were not the same and our lifestyle, business etc much different.

There's much talk at the moment about getting the lockdown in London lifted soon. On the face of it that seems quite reasonable as there are very few, if any, new cases. However, for the reasons you describe there I reckon that London is doomed to another outbreak come what may. In purely theoretical terms, the city shouldn't be opened until there is a vaccination available. In real terms it has to be opened and then the inevitable happens. That said, if folk stick to using their masks and avoid public transport as much as possible, I reckon there is a chance of keeping the size of the next outbreak down.

 

[Rorschach]

There's much talk at the moment about getting the lockdown in London lifted soon. On the face of it that seems quite reasonable as there are very few, if any, new cases. However, for the reasons you describe there I reckon that London is doomed to another outbreak come what may. In purely theoretical terms, the city shouldn't be opened until there is a vaccination available. In real terms it has to be opened and then the inevitable happens. That said, if folk stick to using their masks and avoid public transport as much as possible, I reckon there is a chance of keeping the size of the next outbreak down.

It's a bit of a false narrative going round the media talking about another outbreak or the worst one, a second wave. This was always going to happen, it's unavoidable and those who hark on about it are the same people that can't seem to grasp that the lockdown wasn't to stop people getting C19 or dying, it was just to slow it down enough that the we didn't see overwhelmed hospitals as they did in Italy.
There will be more infections and more deaths, the key is keeping the R rate as close to 1 as possible so we can manage. If deaths can be kept to the low hundreds per day then that's completely manageable in the long term, in fact we know at the peak of about 1200 deaths per day the NHS was coping perfectly well, indeed the hospitals in large areas of the country were basically empty and the emergency hospitals were not needed at all.

They key in my mind to getting things running as normally as possible is to socially distance where possible and where it doesn't work, do the best you can but accept that it will spread.